Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

Red Flags in the Sunset

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Petunia Winegum on July 23, 2015

Most of you probably didn’t notice, but a new Liberal Democrat leader was elected this week. You remember the Lib Dems, don’t you? They used to form a small and stubborn little pocket in the last government; they were the political equivalent of bondage trousers, hindering the Tories from taking the great strides forwards that the Conservative manifesto of 2010 had planned, an effective ball and chain frustrating each step towards the vision of Britain that had been hatched on the playing fields of Eton. Anyway, Tim Farron got the job. On the day his coronation was confirmed, ‘Woman’s Hour’ announced with an air of dejection that the shortlist was all-male, something that couldn’t really be helped in that the eight remaining Lib Dem MPs don’t include a single woman amongst their number.

The Labour Party, on the other hand, is currently headed by a woman – even if she’s only temporarily filling in. And Harriet Harperson has already encountered the downside of party leadership even with her pretend leader’s hat on. A minor backbench rebellion following her decision not to oppose the government’s intended welfare reforms has once again highlighted Labour’s ideological limbo, wary of lurching too left for fear of thwarting the chance of running the country again, yet desperate to locate a position that will distinguish them from the Tories. Even Tony Blair has stuck his oar in, warning the party that any tentative shift away from the centre ground will condemn them to opposition for a generation. Failed leadership candidate Tristram Hunt echoed the sentiments of God’s Special Envoy by claiming the election of Jeremy Corbyn could reduce Labour to little more than an obscure pressure group.

Jeremy Corbyn’s sudden ascendancy to front-runner in the Labour leadership contest reminds me a little of when the public keep voting for the worst dancer on ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ purely for the entertainment value. The contestants who regard themselves as pretty nifty on the dance floor as a consequence of having put the hours in are understandably annoyed that the fat lump with two left feet has proven so popular with viewers and at the expense of their attempt to pass for professionals. Similarly, career politicians whose ambitions stretch all the way to No.10 are rather aggrieved that the rival who makes no concessions to the media makeover that a wannabe PM voluntarily submits to is overtaking them. From their perspective, the party members appear to be backing the candidate without a cat in hell’s chance of leading Labour back to government purely out of spite. The legacy of a leader who won the party three General Elections is so inexplicably toxic that some Labour MPs want to remain in the comfort zone of opposition instead of ‘selling out’ their principles, like an underground band who suddenly enjoyed massive commercial success yearning to revert to being a cult act again.

A diehard resident of the left such as Jeremy Corbyn enables Labour to retain links to its origins, just as numerous old right-wingers in the Conservative Party keep the Shires of Middle England happy, even if they regard David Cameron as too liberal and too willing to compromise party principles for popularity. The fact is the Tories need both sides to be in a position to win a General Election, just as the fledging Liberals required the support of Whig grandees in the nineteenth century. Corbyn contributes a certain ideological element to Labour that traditional Labour voters respond to; they don’t make up a sizeable enough amount of the electorate to fly the red flag on Downing Street, but if the frontbench section of the party can develop a method of appealing to the floating voter, backbench Socialists of the old school can play their own small part in securing electoral victory. It’s a tricky balance, but it can be achieved. Harold Wilson achieved it on four occasions and still found Cabinet places for Michael Foot and Tony Benn, having captured the trust of those members of the public who don’t order The Morning Star from their local newsagents.

So, yes, Corbyn is as crucial an aspect of the overall Labour picture as Jacob Rees-Mogg is to the Tories; as long as the least extreme and more widely acceptable elements of a party front it, their more erratic members can sneak in through the back door, almost as though they were an embarrassing aunt being invited to a family wedding, one warned not to drink too much before the ceremony is over and done with; come the reception, they can get as blotto as they like because nobody will be offended by then. What you don’t do is ply the said relative with booze and sit her at the front whilst the vicar is asking if anyone has any just cause or impediment. But if Jeremy Corbyn is elected Labour leader, this will be precisely what has happened.

Because the old system of electing a new leader resulted in the man everyone bar the unions wanted for the job failing to get it in 2010, Labour has moved the goalposts. The irony is that by doing so they could well end up with an even bigger electoral liability at the helm. The best and most successful Labour leaders have managed to hold the opposing sections of the party together, even when it seemed to be on the verge of civil war. If Corbyn wins the contest, I think a split is inevitable that would make the 1980 exit of Jenkins, Owen, Williams and Rodgers resemble a family being forced to move tables in a restaurant because the diners at the next one are making too much noise.

There is undoubtedly a large and receptive audience awaiting a party leader to come forward with an alternative to the austerity measures of the last five years; many object to the latest plans put forward by Gideon last week and despite incessant hyperbole trumpeting an economic recovery, many have yet to experience the benefits. All of which suggests the electorate is there for the taking, but if there’s no one around to take it then nothing will change. The Tory majority is the smallest a party in government has had for decades, yet it’s hard to see this as a symptom of weakness when the opposition is even weaker. Labour’s failure to the capitalise on the unpopularity of the Coalition underlined the party’s cluelessness; electing a left-winger to lead them to oblivion in 2015 might put smiles on Conservative countenances, but do the Tories really want to win an Election not because the electorate awarded them an overwhelming mandate but because Labour lost it? Has the Scottish Premier League improved without the presence of Rangers, leaving Celtic as the sole soccer superpower in Glasgow?

In yesterday’s Times, a YouGove poll placed Jeremy Corbyn on 43%, seven points clear of his nearest rival, Andy Burnham. If left-wingers within Labour aren’t supporting Corbyn simply to give Blair-ites a bloody nose, well aware their man will never become Prime Minister, are they merely looking at the alternatives and expressing the same sigh of despondency as everyone else? Then again, perhaps the election of Corbyn as Labour leader might finally give the party the kick up the arse it needs by forcing the Social Democrats within it to break away and possibly merge with the remaining Lib Dems, leaving the triumphant left with a minor little party competing for third spot with UKIP and the Greens at by-elections. Labour doesn’t need the Tories to demolish them with a compulsory purchase order; they’re more than capable of being the architects of their own downfall.

Pretty good analysis of the situation. However, there’s just a small outside chance that the electorate would respond to a left leaning Labour Party after ten years of Cameron. I admit that I would find it refreshing to have some “clear blue water” between the parties, like there used to be 40 plus years ago. In those days the 3 main parties all had a distinct identity, now, with them all trying to occupy “the middle ground” it’s sometimes very hard to put a fag paper between them. As for the ” social democrats” within the Labour Party breaking away and joining the Liberals, well we all know what happened with that the last time round don’t we? I hope Corbyn does win rather than that Gerry Anderson creation Burnham.

It should be borne in mind that back in the late 70’s the threat of Communist invasion still loomed large as a believable reality so the socialism of Michael Foot carried overtones of Soviet Hegemony and thus an existential fear. Does anyone now really believe we need nuclear submarines on constant patrol? A truly leftie party might well prove very popular. Let’s hope they start the redistribution of wealth from Islington and then work outwards.

But there won’t be 10 years of Cameron – he’s already clarified that he’ll step aside before the 2020 election, probably in 2018, soon after the 2017 EU Referendum, whatever the result. That gives the Tories a chance to ‘refresh’, whether that’s with Osborne, May, Boris or whoever – with a new leader, the electorate tend to give the benefit of the doubt (see Major, 1992).

If the Labour Party really wanted to win the next election, their new leader (whoever it is) could achieve it at a stroke. Simply adopt a clear policy of leaving the EU – they would still harvest almost all their historical ‘unthinking’ votes, plus most of UKIP, plus lots of those Tories who distrust Cameron and would vote Labour holding their noses simply to leave the EU. Add all that together and it’s a working majority.

But without that key strategy, and led by Corbyn, Labour will be consigned to impotent opposition for the foreseeable future – but maybe that’s what they really want, it’s so much easier yelling abuse from the sidelines than being on the pitch and having to work as a team and deliver a result.

Plus most of UKIP? UKIP supporters don’t condone the Fabian destruction of British society by the ‘ modern ‘ socialist left. Voting labour gets you Rotherham in most UKIP supporters eyes. If Corbyn gets in, Labour is finished, hopefully permanently. Sadly like Francois Hollande, who replaced Sarkosy, what will replace them has no guarantee of being better, unless it is UKIP.

The issue for those who are desperate to get out of the EU is about which party offers the greatest chance of achieving that – to such folk nothing else matters. Currently those folk mostly vote UKIP to establish the message, whilst acknowledging that UKIP will not become the governing party, therefore incapable of ever making it happen – at the moment, the message is the important thing. But if/when either of the major parties (i.e. those who have a realistic chance of forming a government) adopts ‘EU Exit’ as a manifesto commitment, then most determined ‘get-out’ voters will support that party simply for that single reason. They know that, once out of the EU, normal UK politics can then return, when they can revert to their natural parties. I voted Labour in 1983 for that reason alone and will continue to vote for whichever party at the time offers the best route to that Exit goal – I am not alone.

There is no chance that the electorate at large will respond to a left leaning Labour party while the issue of immigration remains toxic, unless Corbyn adopts a protectionist closed borders stance – and I see no evidence of that. It’s more likely imho that there will be a defection to the Lib Dems and Greens of social democratic labourites. That would be broadly in line with the rest of Western Europe – no?

And I’m not sure that many people feel so secure about Russia’s current intentions that they would feel happy about scrapping Trident. They may not be right, of course.

I’ve come to the conclusion that Bliar crops up every now & then to maintain the illusion of party politics, when he & his cronies sold it down the river and know this full well. All we’re left with now is careerist businessmen playing at being Parliamentarians whilst lobbying for commercials concerns to take what remains of this country down – “hiding in plain site” springs to mind.http://retardedkingdom.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-root-of-all-evil.html Maintain the illusion that there is a “point” and it keeps the Twiterati happy handing out red and blue stickers. It also expains why all of a sudden it’s de rigueur for politicians to denounce dead and dying politicians of more enlightened time – who may or may not have been swines, but were always first and foremost Parliamentarians.

Does anyone else wonder why Corbyn is being called an extreme leftwinger? I had a look at the short list of his policies in the Telegraph and they seemed very tame. Increase corporation tax and set up regional investment banks would not be particularly controversial among many right wing parties elsewhere in Europe.

I think we have to admit we are in a pretty strange position historically. In the late 1990s the leader of a left wing party managed to steal the clothes of the right while the Tories were occupied with internal squabbles. Cameron has rather successfully taken them back and this leaves Labour in a quandry as to what to do now.

Most of the leadership hopefuls seem to think that they can go back to playing the card Blair did in 1997 without realising that moment has gone. Labour needs to find itself a distinctive offering. This week’s desperate charade where a Labour party effective backed a Tory welfare bill shows they are a long way from realising this (if they are going to continue in such a direction why not give up having an opposition and everyone join the Conservatives?).

A two party system such as we have depends on two different parties with two different visions competing for power. What we have seen, even under Miliband, is two sets of politicians treating the general election as a job interview for a new management team. Labour can never beat an incumbent party on those terms. Given the dreary choice among the leadership candidates, they might as well give Corbyn a go and try and develop a new vision appropriate for today’s circumstances rather than revelling in nostalgia for the Blair years.

* I think we have to admit we are in a pretty strange position historically. In the late 1990s the leader of a left wing party managed to steal the clothes of the right while the Tories were occupied with internal squabbles. Cameron has rather successfully taken them back *

Stolen some of the clothes of Blair to do it too of course.

There does seem to be a serious attempt to roll back the State however. The babbling Billions statements recently descend into mumbo-jumbo close up but from a distance it does look like a determined statement of intent to dismember a huge monster. The many heads of the Hydra squealing poverty and social injustice may however prove a siren’s call to the likes of Corbyn. He might be wise to escape the shackles of the mainstream media because he won’t stand a chance if he lets them present his case, so if the media lose their political clout that would be the healthiest thing since Orson Welles made Citizen Kane.

I don’t think Left and Right work very well any more. Neither party has stolen the other’s clothes- they have simply both moved into Neo-Progressivism, with the Tories, as is traditional, doing the more nasty version with the stick and Labour being a little bit more carroty.

I am a Libertarian, but there is sod all chance of that happening any time soon. With that in mind, I have to admit that if forced to choose between the Old Left or the New Left, I might prefer the Old. And yes, I do remember the 1970s.

Someone forgot to tell that to the labour party, the pointless blue labour has to be consigned to the dustbin of history, Corbyn would be a breath of fresh air – not to mention being a thorn in the backsides of the Cons and other parties.

“There is undoubtedly a large and receptive audience awaiting a party leader to come forward with an alternative to the austerity measures of the last five years; many object to the latest plans put forward by Gideon last week and despite incessant hyperbole trumpeting an economic recovery, many have yet to experience the benefits.”

“Yesterday saw the release of the June figures for spending, taxing and borrowing. Over the year June 30th total public spending rose by 2.9% in cash terms. As there was no inflation over that year, that is a real increase of 2.9%. I look forward to a flood of articles praising the end of austerity and recognising that real public spending is rising.”

I too would welcome ‘blue water’ between the parties. I have no idea at all what the LibDems stand for, they are certainly neither ‘liberal’ or ‘democratic’. Come to that which bits of the past are the Conservatives wanting to ‘conserve and since when did Labour not hold the white working man in contempt?

Of course it is all just a side show to distract us from the continuous moves towards ‘ever closer union’ in the northern part of the caliphate.

I also don’t buy the ‘austerity’ card. Not just because I was a war baby & lived through what was then accepted as post war austerity. Even then we still managed to set up a health service, develop nuclear weapons, missiles & modern jets. & we weren’t starving in the streets despite massive housing problems. I was arguing last night with a fellow wrinkly about free bus passes- my view was that if they’d never been ‘given’ to pensioners, it’s unlikely there’d have been a massive campaign to have them; similarly winter fuel allowance, etc, so why not just scrap them? Or perhaps consolidate with the state pension, & so be taxed. Which really highlights the absurdity of the whole system. I certainly don’t think the complex, wide ranging, & expensive extension of the welfare state has always been helpful or necessary. It’s also unfortunate that every ‘benefit’ is a another poison pill for the Tories as the nasty party. Particularly as I don’t see a huge difference between mainstream Left & Right. Some agreement on that might isolate the extreme Left & perhaps show the absurdity of their dogma.

I think were people today forced to endure the austerity of 1947/48, they’d know what real austerity is. But I suppose it’s relative, really. The immediate post-war conditions of the country were bad for many, but then again, compared to the slums of Dickensian London, the baby boomers probably had it easy.

” we still managed to set up a health service, develop nuclear weapons, missiles & modern jets. & we weren’t starving in the streets despite massive housing problems.”……………..all with borrowed money, mostly wasted if you believe many.

Interesting link Cascadian, but it is care of the BBC. It may well be that more recent judgements of those times are right to be critical when viewed from the comfort of a different world. I suspect that the speed with which the UK dismantled Empire & other obligations was probably as fast as was practically possible, maybe with more benign outcomes than that of other contemporary empires. The response to perceived international threats seems equally rational judged against those times. just a view.

None of them stand for anything distinct any more. The Liberals are the ones to feel sorriest for in a sense, since their territory was the crankish leftism that Orwell derided as “sandal wearers, sex maniacs and fruit juice drinkers”, but they are now the mainstream, so all three parties are the Crank Left now and the Liberals have nothing left to stand for. Labour used to be an awkward coalition of Methodists and Marxists, and the Tories were Anglicans and the business and landed interests. But that hasn’t been the case for a long time, in either case.

Tim Farron is an anagram of minor fart – via Twitter. Harriet Harperson is one of the stupidest non gender specific units of political hot air bollocks I have ever had the misfortune to meet. She did have quite nice legs though, back in the day (*SEXIST KLAXON BLARES*) Corbyn is by all accounts a nice and principled man. He is heir to the long tradition of what may genuinely be called socialist thought which emanated from the lower orders of British society. The Peasant’s Revolt (1381) espoused ideas many of which could be perfectly legitimately classed (pardon the pun) as “socialist” in the most orthodox and hard line way, and is of course still a revered event for many of the hard left today. Later in the 17th Century these ideas fused with radical puritan thought in the form of groups such as the Levellers – who’s set at Glastonbury in 1651 real set the Pyramid Stage crowd a- jumping. No no! I merely jest! Not the still reasonably popular punk come indie band formed in 1988. The Levellers movement was a well organised political/religious movement which espoused ideas which would have had the late Tony Benn and Corbyn in orgasm of delight.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers As I recall, when there were signs of this group getting out of control as the Wikipedia entry above indicates, Cromwell had the leaders (and it appears any other troops who indicated support) pretty much summarily executed. As a movement it has the benefit of neo religious zeal and faith. Indeed I would argue that many of the proponents of this brand of socialism display many of the psychological traits of the radical convert of any religion, including that sense of utter certainty, self righteousness, poverty worship and general busy body-ness. It is a matter of considerable hilarity that Corbyn, allowed into the contest by MP’s who had no desire to see him elected, now threatens to win the election. If Corbyn is elected, it will see “Nu Labour” become a protest party – a not insignificant one, but still marginalised. For good or ill. SUch radicals do have along and deep rooted tradition in British or perhaps more accurately English political thought, far older than Marxism as such. But they have never really chimed with the great mass of the English, who remain, broadly speaking, more fun loving, more pragmatic, rather keen on gardening and and more prone to getting pissed and playing golf and so forth. On that “Wacist” note – discuss. G the M

That’s a great one. I’m terrible with anagrams, but I do remember Graham Norton (back in his C4 days) hosting footballer David Ginola as a guest and working out his name as an anagram was Vagina Dildo!

In the Clan Dwarf, all first born males are “AJ” and have been since 18whateevr and our illustrious forbear “Asmodeus Jacob ‘Danger’ Smith” (So called cos he was a danger to himself and others, I jest not). So My eldest was “Andreas Johannes” or “Andrew John” depending on which Birth Cert you believed . Second born we gave the nordic name “Kai”…which was fine in Germany but returning to the UK meant that for most of his childhood he was known here as “Key” or “Ki-ah” or “Kee” …to this day he still gets letters addressed to Mrs. Kay Dwarf.

Afraid the sexist klaxon will always blare! The only thing I can really find to commend Liz Kendall is that her pins are rather fine. Mind you, I’m sure many ladies were persuaded to vote for David Owen back in the day due to his suave, Jeremy Irons-esque looks…

“A man wanting to be Labour leader has to explain why he did nothing on allegations of child abuse on Islington in 80s while he was local MP” – so says John Mann MP about Corbyn:https://twitter.com/JohnMannMP/status/624110487576444928 The excitable Mr Mann piqued my interest a while ago with the tale of the ‘dossier’ he had assembled being passed to the police. I couldn’t quite understand how he had managed to sit on all this information he claimed to have been aware of since, oh, more than twenty-five years ago, including claims of possible murders & the like.

He surely must have been shouting about it from the rooftops year in, year out. Curiosity led to the pages of Hansard on a poorly-designed website that wore my patience down: repeatedly having to input the same information to see the written or spoken contributions from the same MP, one year at a time… I’d had enough of hitting the Back-button after six attempts (three years picked at random, spoken & written). But there was no trace of Mister Mann having had the slightest interest in what he’d now assure us has been his life-long crusade.

Other than that incidental mention of keeping it in the family in 2008, it seems so. This, his first post-savile interjection is absolutely fabulous: “… even when it comes to child abuse, gaming is as big a problem and a vastly growing one. Texting, smartphones and social networking are equally significant…” Knob of the first order I would say.

The irony is that in the 80’s Naypic were hand in glove with Islington social services as I recall being a ‘right-on’ (no pun intended) authority and were well into ‘children’s rights’ however defined. At that time permissive but clearly changed focus once the compo benefits accrued.

“It would appear that Liz, who worked in Islington Child services between 1986 and 1992 was Eileen’s whistle-blower back then, if I’m following the story correctly. Since then Liz’s academic career has followed its successful path. So far as I can tell, neither of these women had ever mentioned Jimmy Savile in any context to do with child protection prior to 2012. In February 2012, Liz worked on a BBC production alongside Mark Williams-Thomas. ”http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/tangled-webs.html “I wasn’t the person who informed Tom Watson MP about the closing down of a child abuse investigation during the 90s involving Peter Righton which contained evidence of a paedophile ring which had links to Parliament and Number 10 – but I could have been. In October, he raised this at Prime Minister’s Question Time requesting that the Metropolitan police secure the evidence, re-examine it and investigate. I did have professional involvement with two investigations concerning Righton and they both led to a gathering of evidence about organised networks of child abusers, which spread, into the upper, most powerful, echelons of society.”

Yes – according to reports the ‘whistleblower’ was Peter McKelvie – but since Mike Hames and the others mentioned worked in tandem (or tri given a bit of jostling )- and they all shared the same ideological speculative beliefs it’s not surprising they all come up with the same reiterations now. And haven’t they done well!

Since the advent of Blair, politicians have made it a rule to separate morality from politics. As a result of seeing all morality as relative, and it not being the place of politicians to imply a specific set of values or morals embedded in their politics, we have therefore lost true politicians.

Instead we have a constant stream of career professionals debating how to “manage” the country. We have managers. These managers try to sell “strategy” and “vision” and “policy”….but never politics. There are no statesmen or women, there are no politicians who see their politics as something that is part of a greater whole. They just want to sell their brand of management.

Tony Blair’s speech demonstrated that completely. To follow his advice will just be further confirmation that we have truly lost genuine politics.

Someone once said re Blair that he wouldn’t have been so eager to commit British forces to conflict had he experienced it first hand himself. The last British PM to have fought in any war was Jim Callaghan (I think), and it’s interesting that (Eden aside) the first post-war British PM to send British troops into battle was Thatcher.

Hands up, I did forget Korea, though mentioned Suez (the Eden reference). The other conflicts you’ve listed were shoring-up troubled colonies, where we already had a military or naval presence. One could include Northern Ireland as a colonial war in that respect.

Why is Corbyn so far ahead in the polls? Is it because quite a large proportion of Labour party members and affiliates like his policies? If so, do that proportion of Labour Party members hold similar views to a majority of the electorate?

I’m a bit wary of forecasting things, because I often get it wrong. However, it may be that the Labour Party membership contains quite a lot of people with views that are more left-leaning than the electorate at large. They may succeed in getting Corbyn installed as Labour leader. The Party may then find it slumps in the national polls, slowly realise that it’s gone in a direction that the general public find rather less to their taste than a more centrist approach, and move to change it’s leadership. Whether it does that before the next election, or does it’s best to put up a united front behind Corbyn knowing it’ll lose heavily and then move to replace him, is anybody’s guess.

One of Labour’s problems is that most of the ‘big’ things it’s done in government have turned out to be disasters. Nationalisation was supposed to put the means of wealth creation in the taxpayers’ hands, but it ended up costing the taxpayer dearly. The Welfare State was supposed to be a safety net, but it ended up as a complicated mess that left some people desperately poor whilst feather-bedding others. The NHS was a nice idea in principle, but it ended up being a nightmare to administer, and all would admit that it has had plenty of failings, be they long waiting times or Mid Staffs. Only the most blinkered won’t accept that both Welfare and NHS need a really good sort-out, but nobody believes that a Labour government would be capable of sorting them. Comprehensive education has also turned out to be somewhat less than effective in the real world; again, though it made a start with academies, nobody really thinks that the Labour party can turn things round.

The Labour Party’s basic founding principles – decency for the ordinary working person – were perfectly honourable, and broadly speaking have come to pass. Consequently, the Labour party is struggling to find reasons to go on existing, and it isn’t helped by a reputation for not being as good at governing the country as the Tories (for all their faults). It’s got a big problem, and Corbyn isn’t going to provide the answer.

I agree that Corbin’s not the answer, but I do think we need our highly paid H M Loyal Opposition to be effective & hold govt’s feet to the fire. Not much to show for it during the last administration though I suppose we could say the LibDems were doing it on the inside & we are sure to see some Tories expressing free will. Given that it seems possible to buy the right to vote in this toytown beauty parade, it’ll be interesting to see how that influences the result. Somehow I don’t see Labour sorting itself out; maybe the BBC will help them?

We had a lengthy period of Labour administration during which the public sector grew from about 37% of GDP to 52%, with about 9%of GDP being borrowed. It’ll take a while to repair that damage, so having Labour out of power for about the length of time they held it is probably best for the country. After that – well, depends what state the country and the wider world is in by then. I agree that what would effectively be a one-party state is not particularly desirable, so we do need an effective opposition that looks like a government-in-waiting, not just a bunch of reactionary whingers opposing everything (ineffectively) just for the sake of it. Recent history suggests that it takes longer than one Parliamentary term for a losing party to regroup into a credible government-in-waiting; maybe that’s down to the complexity of affairs in the modern world? Or maybe today’s front-bench politicians just aren’t up to it? Too much PPE theory at university and bag-carrying for yesterday’s political generation, and not enough real-world experience.

Who could ever judge what and how a nation thinks? There are some signs, runes to read however.

Since the mid to late Nineties many educated and ambitious Brits read the writing and thought, “fuck it I’m off”, figures are disputed but I reckon between four and five million have upped sticks and gone abroad, more if you include the Spanish-Euroland retirees. What were they running to escape from? You hear anecdotes from friends and relatives, read stories about some who return here to Britain for a visit, holiday – likening it to a trip to the zoo and remark – “I’m glad I left, it [the country] has gone downhill since we moved” or words to the same effect.

You have to give some distance to provide perspective, to be able to view the overall bigger landscape.

For those who have lived in the UK these past thirty, even forty years or so and if you don’t travel about the country much, then they will have seen many changes but will not be able to fully comprehend the enormous alteration, should I call it a transmutation, or better yet a mutation?

Mutation, a modification but not to any of our specs, we were never asked but we got it anyway and we are told time and again, “this is for your benefit” and “you’re aging”, “you’re past it”, “you need more people”, “we are a forwards looking nation open to do business”, “it’s good for us all and to nobody in particular”. “printing money to prevent recession and to shaft the careful and the savers” [oh maybe not the last bit].

A blizzard of lies and misdirection and all for ‘our’ benefit – you understand, don’t you?

Whether labour or tory, the message is the same, the puppets long ago ceded power to the Brussels Kommissars and beyond even them, to the various world organizations and world conglomerates, investment bankers and billionaires who shape the future of this island. The trick is, you see we don’t govern ourselves any more, Westminster is an olde talking shoppe, full of ‘on the make’, ‘on the take’ managerialists and less than useless they are at that. I don’t know how but honestly, would you really trust any of them……………..how do they become ‘our’ representatives – and are we as puddled as them, to think that they will make a difference – more fool us then.

Give Corbyn a go, what does it matter?

Even in the unlikely event he won an election, things more or less would remain the same with, more EUrope, more immigration, more multiculturalism despite what Dave spouts…… diversity and equality [equality – read purposeful discrimination] and spending your money on windmills galore, foreign gewgaws and Zimbabwe.

And Britain, now, a land of isolated people, a generation of renters and ill educated at best, in the end we are just units, “the sheeple”.

In summary, as someone remarked on a blog thread the other day paraphrasing, “1984 was a novel, now become the blueprint” an unending nightmare for future generations but how will they quantify it? 1984, could it be something far worse?

Affirmative to that, we in the west are weakened and on our knees, if we witness what goes on in the Levant, there will be no past to harken back to, cometh the Caliphate and Ummah.

Labour or Tory, it’s too late for them, but is it also – too late for us?

* In summary, as someone remarked on a blog thread the other day paraphrasing, “1984 was a novel, now become the blueprint” an unending nightmare for future generations but how will they quantify it? 1984, could it be something far worse? *

Far more Brave New World than 1984 I would suggest. Sex, drugs, zips and social engineering.

I’m sure Mr. Corbyn is a well-intentioned man (although I have never trusted internationalist lefties – they always seem to have some silly dream re. world revolution) and I think of the so-called intellectual left as gazing in rapture at the Fabian window or poring through learned tomes, looking for ‘the answer’. One had a similar impression of the gormless Miliband.

Although I regard a healthy opposition as a major ingredient of a successful system, I don’t, at present, give a shit about the existential crisis engulfing the Labour party, as we are still wrestling with the consequences of a series of ham-fisted administrations which were always behind the curve when it came to confronting reality.

Apparently, the main armament of HMS Belfast is trained on Scratchwood Services on the M1. A slight rotation and change of elevation might serve to drop a hint. The bod in charge must have attempted to buy a decent sandwich there once…

But I am sure that the egregious Mr. Russell Brand would approve of Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, who seems to be stuck in a 1968 time-warp, like Dear Ken L.

By who? The parties are following each other’s patterns. The Tories post-Blair Massacre worked their way through three leaders. I didn’t bother voting in any of the General Elections after 1997 and until 2010 (Hague, Duncan, Dracula). Then I voted Liberal to get my £10 tax allowance. Keep it simple. Keep it real.

I don’t think so, somehow; Union pressure? It’s clear that there is also a wave of Tories taking advantage of the Labour party’s shock/panic over the election (£3 to have a voice!) who are signing up, spotting a ‘gap in the market’ and voting for Corbyn as being their fave.

This is, to say the least, unprincipled, if amusing, but alongside it sits the law of unintended consequences and ‘be careful what you wish for…’

I listened to the LBC debate the other evening and also some of the feedback. The overwhelming impression that I had was that Corbyn was ‘principled’, ‘didn’t hesitate’, etc., etc.

Well, bollocks. If someone is reciting a robotic script, then people really should question that. No question, no pause, no hesitation. Tariq Ali!

I listened to the whole debate on LBC last night, it was quite depressing. Corbyn and Kendle sounded ok, I don’t agree with his politics but at least he livened things up a bit, she shows promise but is too young and not ready. As for the other two, the idea of either of them as leaders is laughable.

The other leadership candidates are so weak. None of them are credible in my opinion and the Tory’s would eat them for breakfast. At least Corbyn would offer some genuine policy alternatives, however barmy some of them are.

The liebour party is essentially bankrupt, (financially as well as of of new ideas), the Co-Op bank that bastion of socialist lending is insolvent so the only source of funds are the unions, therefore the unions will have their candidate as leader, is it surprising that person will espouse socialist principles and not the pragmatic Bliar promises.

Working “class” people of whom there are decreasingly few have viewed the disaster of the last seventy years in yUK and decamped to UKIP. Pensioners who believed the lies that their sacrifices in the forties and fifties would be repaid in their retirement have bitterly denounced Liebour and decamped to UKIP. Scottish Liebour has been obliterated. Liebours electorate now consists of the welfarists, and liebours client-workers the teachers, healthcare workers, and dimmer university attendees who have been brain-washed, that is still a potent number of people (people disregard that Liebour increased its vote in the last election). The limpdems are done for a generation, Greens electorate of the dim and easily persuaded has peaked. The party to watch is UKIP, but lets face it their ridiculous squabbling about Short money does not bode well for a sensible party.

Like many I would like to see Corbyn as Liebour leader, I believe he could tie camorons blulabour in knots in the house of commons. Though he is deluded by his dogma and 1940’s solutions he might at least start an honest discussion about the country’s finances and the future of deadbeat industries-NHS, military, schools, trains, airport, enrgy provision etc.

The following quote from the TV series, “the thick of it” describes the current state of practically all of the major British political parties

“I’ve spent ten years detoxifying this party. It’s been a bit like renovating an old, old house, yeah? You can take out a sexist beam here, a callous window there, replace the odd homophobic roof tile. But after a while you realise that this renovation is doomed. Because the foundations are built on what I can only describe as a solid bed of cunts.”

Well maybe it’s just that he appears to actually believe in something. Even if it’s a bit nutty, at least it’s something.

The political debate is virtually dead in this country- the two party system works okay when they stand for something in opposition to each other, but now it has reduced to two sets of technocrats vying for a managerial post. We have corporate politics in a sense- rather than leaders of a nation state, they’re more area managers of the Britain region, and it’s depressing to behold.

A Labour Party that doesn’t dare vote against the Tories aren’t worth having. The modern Tory Party isn’t worth having either, though. Corbyn’s appeal is that he seems to believe in something. Anything. On that basis, he is leading the race because he is literally better than nothing.